And this may surprise you, but I have always said that economics ought to have some leeway for qualitative analysis also. For example, it may make perfect economic sense for us to buy stuff from China, but if we destroy our mgf base and move jobs offshore, I think it is relevant.
In a strange way, an Austrian approach to economics favors me and my arguments. It puts the “reason” into economics, and like the article said, once you do that, you open the door for what anybody thinks is right.
That being said, there are ways to measure some things, and I think any valid economic school ought to be able to back up a little of what they theorize and predict some things once in a while, based on observable facts.
One thing that p*sses me off about rhe von Mises set here on FR, is that they pop up all the time with these grand pronuncimuntos about things, UNDER THE BANNER OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE, and the truth is, it ain’t science at all to the Austrians.
And BTW, when was the last time you ever saw an actual analysis of the Austrian SE on FR? I think never. People quote it, cite it, and argue it, and I thought it was time for us all to see exactly what it is. Frankly, the Emperor is running around in his undies.
That set could just as well have cited Ayn Rand as economic justification for some of their arguments.
parsy, who has another first on FR.
The one thing about most economic theories is that it assumes a lack of fraudulent intent, and that is a huge factor to assume away.
That's true to my understanding. Economics is more about the moral philosophy governing complex human behaviors and less about observable science to the Austrian School.